Gujarat High Court
Ravjibhai Galabhai Parmar vs Kiritbhai Jenabhai Zala on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 569 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RAVJIBHAI GALABHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
KIRITBHAI JENABHAI ZALA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUNAL D PANDYA(3283) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants, being the legal heirs of one Arvindbhai, who had passed away on 04.03.2014 in an unfortunate road accident. The appeal is against the judgment and award dated 02.01.2018 passed in the concerned MACP No.461 of 2014, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) District-Kheda. In the said Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined judgment and award, the tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by allowing a recovery to the claimants of the said petitions a sum of Rs.3,89,280/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of claim petition till its realization from the opponent no.1 and 2, exonerating the opponent No.3, the insurance company of the unregistered Eicher 380 Tractor.
2. In so far as the fact pertaining to the accident are concerned, it appears that on 04.03.2014 at about 8:30 p.m. when the deceased Arvindbhai was going from village Nakhuti to Dhunadara on motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-7-BM-8323 (hereinafter, "the motorcycle"), the opponent No.2, driving an unregistered Eicher-380 Tractor (hereinafter,"the tractor") with full speed and in negligent manner, dashed the said tractor onto the motorcycle. Owing to the said accident, the said Mr. Arvindbhai lost his life.
3. The only ground on which the present appeal has been Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined preferred is the exoneration of the aforesaid insurance company. It is the contention of the appellant (original claimants) that the said exoneration is liable to be interfered. In the alternative, it was submitted that even if the Court considers that the Insurance Company is not liable, more so in view of the fact that the offending vehicle has not been registered with the Regional Transport Office, then too, the Insurance Company may please first be ordered to pay, and then, to recover the said amount from the Owner/Driver of the said unregistered Eicher 380 Tractor. Thus, it was submitted that in view of the breach of policy conditions, the judgment and award be modified to the extent that the insurance company may be held liable to first pay the claim amount to the appellants (original claimants) with a liberty to the insurance company to recover it from the opponents No.1 and 2 being the owner and driver of the unregistered Eicher 380 Tractor involved in the accident.
Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for the appellant. He submitted that the reason why the insurance company has been exonerated is that there is a breach of policy condition, inasmuch as, the tractor involved in the accident was not registered. It was submitted that tribunal has observed in the impugned judgment that the RTO Office has accepted registration fees and tax, and yet, the registration number of vehicle was not granted. It was, however, the say of the learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar that the concerned vehicle was not produced for inspection; that the temporary registration number is only valid for a month of the date of purchase of the vehicle. It was further submitted that by that time, the vehicle ought to be submitted for inspection. It was also submitted that the fees and tax were paid only on 11.03.2014, which is after the date of accident. It short, on date of the accident, the vehicle was not having a valid registration number. It was submitted that the witness, RTO Officer, Mr. Hemantbhai has Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined recorded the fact that as the vehicle was not produced for inspection before the relevant authority and that therefore the said registration number was not allotted and that only the temporary registration number, as was available from the showroom, where from the tractor was purchased, was there with the vehicle and which was only valid from the earliest of the following two dates, namely, (1) production of the said vehicle in the RTO office for inspection, or (2) one month from the date of purchase.
5. It was thus submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that this being only a breach of condition therefore the insurance company may kindly be ordered that it may first pay the amount adjudicated by the Tribunal and, thereafter it may recover it from the owner/driver of the vehicle, for the reason that the it was only a case of breach of condition of the policy. No other aspect of the judgment including the negligence and the quantum of the compensation Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined awarded under the present matter has been challenged, nor were such grounds pressed before this Court.
6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the insurance company respondent No.3. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati submitted that under the applicable law, once there is a breach of condition, insurance company cannot be held liable in the matter. It was thus submitted that it is not the case of the other side that there is not breach of the condition. He submitted that therefore, in the present circumstances, the finding of the tribunal to the extent that the original opponent No.3 i.e. present respondent No.3 having been exonerated may kindly be confirmed and may not be interfered.
7. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present matter in terms of hereinafter.
Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined
8. The following point of determination arises for the consideration of this Court:
(a) Whether the exoneration of insurance company on account of breach of policy condition is liable to be sustained? Further, would an order against the insurance company to first pay the amount ordered under impugned judgment and award, then recover the said amount from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle (unregistered Eicher 380 Tractor) been more appropriate in facts and circumstances of the matter?
9. Indeed, it was a breach of condition of policy insuring the vehicle in as much as the vehicles appears not to have been produced before the RTO Office within the statutory permissible limit for inspection. Consequently, the formalities for providing a Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined registration number of the vehicle could not be completed. It is thus admitted fact that the concerned vehicle did not have registration number and that the earlier temporary registration number was only valid, at the highest for a period of one month from the date of purchase. It is not the case of the appellant that the vehicle, involved in the accident, caused the accident within one month of the purchase of the vehicle and that therefore, there is reason to believe that there was breach of condition pertaining to vehicle having requisite requirement of valid registration number and permit at the time of the concerned accident, i.e. 04.03.2014.
10. Naturally, therefore there was a clear breach of condition of the policy as regards valid registration/permit of the vehicle. The learned advocate for the appellant, when confronted with the factum of Exhibit-36, i.e. copy of receipt signed by the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Department dated 11.03.2014, Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined could not refute the fact that the accident was prior (i.e. dated 04.03.2014) to the issuance of the said receipt.
11. At this juncture, for the purpose of understanding the broad principles of "Pay & Recover", the judgement of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunita and others vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and others, reported in MANU/SC/0934/2025 decided on 17.07.2025, may be referred. The relevant paragraphs thereof are quoted hereinbefore for the ease of reference.
"12. The next question which arises for our consideration is whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount to the claimant-Appellant and, thereafter, recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle.
13. Adverting to the facts in hand, from a bare perusal of the record, it is borne that the vehicle in question was insured with "Liability Only Policy" and no premium was paid to cover the driver, owner, or a gratuitous passenger travelling therein. However, even then, in our view, the Courts below erred in holding that the Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant-Appellants, for the principle of "Pay and Recover" ought to have been invoked. As such, we are inclined to interefere with the above findings of the Courts below.
14. We must advert to the exposition of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur MANU/SC/0009/2004: 2004:INSC: 19:
(2004) 2 SCC 1. The deceased therein was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, and due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, lost his life. The Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the amount awarded by the Courts below and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as the premium was not paid by the owner of the vehicle towards gratuitous passenger.
15.The above position has been followed by this Court in Anu Bhanvara v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/1077/2019:
2019:INSC: 890: (2020) 20 SCO 632 wherein the injured person was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and was not covered under the Insurance Policy, the driver and owner of the vehicle was held liable for payment of compensation amount. This Court applied the principle of "Pay and Recover and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
16.The aforementioned principle was adopted by this Court, in various judgments of this Court in Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar MANU/SC/0209/1998: 1998:INSC:140 (1998) 3 SCC 744; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya MANU/SC/0031/2002: 2002:INSC:30: Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined (2002) 2 SCC 278; National Insurance Co Ltd. v.
Challa Upendra Rao MANU/SC/0779/2004 2004:INSC:537: (2004) 8 SCC 517; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi MANU/SC/1087/2010; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul MANU/SC/0006/2013:
2013:INSC: 3: (2013) 2 SCC 41; Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh MANU/SC/0194/2017: 2017:INSC:164: (2017) 4 SCC 796; and Puttappa v. Rama Naik MANU/SCOR/87148/2018.
17. Applying the above expositions of law, the Courts below ought to have directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the amount and thereafter recover the same.
18. Therefore, in light of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and recover the same only from the owner of the offending vehicle.
19. In view of the above discussion, the driver of the offending vehicle is not liable as he was holding a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle i.e., TATA 407 Truck."
12. As noticed, herein-above, there is a clear mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court that in view of the aforesaid expositions of law in case of breach of policy conditions, the directions of "pay and recover" ought to be issued against the owner.
Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined
13. Question is, whether non-registration of a vehicle constitutes breach of policy condition? The same has been answered in affirmative by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Reported in MANU/SC/0762/2014:AIR 2014 SC 3761: 2014(a) SCC 324. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to Section 39 and 43, read with Section 192 f the Motor Vehicles Act concluded that using a vehicle on the public road without registration, is not only a punishable offence, but also a fundamental breach of the terms of conditions of policy contract.
14. To the aforesaid binding precedent, this Court most respectfully abides. Thus, non-registration of vehicle, constitutes to be a fundamental breach of policy conditions, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, (2014) 9 SCC 324. The relevant portion of the said judgment is Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined reproduced hereinafter, for the ease of reference:
"12. Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract."
15. Thus, it is the view of this Court that in the present fact and circumstances, the Insurance Company ought to be directed to first pay the claims amount to the appellant (original claimants) and thereafter recover the same from the owner (respondent No.1 herein).
16. Insofar as the quantum on compensation is concerned, the Court begs to note that though the said aspect was pleaded in this Appeal, the same was not pressed at the time of hearing of this Appeal. No other aspects of Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined the judgment were assailed in the matter. Hence, the present appeal stands disposed of as partly allowed in aforesaid manner.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J) CHIRAG D PAL Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025